Members of Congress on the end of the Space Shuttle

By Jeff Foust on 2011 July 8 at 9:29 am ET

I’m at the Kennedy Space Center this morning, where in a couple of hours, if weather permits (a big if right now!) and there are no technical issues, the shuttle Atlantis will lift off on STS-135, the final shuttle mission. In the last few days several members of Congress have spoken about the shuttle’s end and what the future holds.

Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, notes in a statement he’s been in Congress since the shuttle’s first flight in 1981. He heaps praise on NASA and all involved with the shuttle program: “The talented men and women of NASA’s Space Shuttle team have done an extraordinary job, continually pushing the boundaries of science and engineering. They deserve tremendous credit for their accomplishments and their continuing commitment to the success of our nation’s endeavors in space.” He also looks to the future:

With the retirement of the Space Shuttle, NASA will face a critical period and will need Congress’s support and direction to focus its limited resources on sustaining America’s leadership in space. We are in a challenging budget environment, but I believe that ensuring U.S. access to space is vital to our national interests. I believe human space exploration should be a national priority. In order for the U.S. to remain a leader in space exploration Congress has given NASA a blueprint in last year’s authorization bill, which is now law. The Space Launch System and Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle are important priorities that can also ensure the U.S. achieves assured access for American crews, in case commercial ventures do not materialize or our international partners become unable to provide access to the Space Station. As Chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I will continue to make sure that NASA follows this path, so that America will remain the preeminent leader in space exploration.

With the retired Shuttle Program, America’s legacy as the unrivaled world leader in space exploration enters a new and uncertain era. NASA faces many new challenges to sustain America’s leadership in space, especially during this difficult budgetary time. As chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, I will work with Congress, NASA, and the Administration to clarify our goals and strategies, monitor the agency’s progress, and help address the needs and challenges ahead. I believe Congress should prioritize human spaceflight and continue developing the Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle in order to achieve assured access for American crews to the International Space Station, in the event commercial ventures are not successful. Congress has given NASA a clear direction to follow in last year’s authorization bill. I will do my part to assist Chairman Ralph Hall (R-TX) in ensuring NASA follows the law and maintains America’s space exploration legacy

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) released a statement he gave on the Senate floor Thursday on NASA and the future. “And so today on the eve of the final space shuttle launch, we celebrate the shuttle program’s remarkable feats, which exhibited many of the qualities that make America exceptional — courage, ingenuity, risk taking and an ability to accomplish what once seemed unthinkable,” he stated. He then took on the administration about NASA’s future:

This brings me to the other reason for speaking today. You see, when this final shuttle mission draws to a close, many Americans will be startled by the realization that we don’t have an answer to the question: What’s next for NASA?

NASA has no answer, the administration has no answer, and as we transition to the next generation of space exploration, Florida’s aerospace workers are left with only questions about their future.

Rubio added later that while commercial crew efforts “is a promising development that we should encourage”, “NASA should lead.” Just not with any more money than it’s currently getting: “It will not be about spending more. It will be about spending wisely.”

A different point of view about NASA’s future comes from Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), which is interesting since she doesn’t speak out on space issues generally. She told Missouri News Horizon that she sees a bright future for the nation’s space program because of public-private partnerships like commercial cargo and crew. “I think you’re still going to see a very aggressive space program, it’s just going to be fashioned differently in terms of a public-private partnership,” she said.

Houston radio station KUHF-FM also got a very brief comment from Sen. John Cornyn on life after the shuttle: “The last shuttle launch means that we are now going to be dependent on the tender mercies of Russia and other countries, to buy room on a shuttle or rocket that will actually get us to the International Space Station.”

34 comments to Members of Congress on the end of the Space Shuttle

What was most puzzling about the last 2 1/2 years is not only how incompetently NASA has been run, but the vindictiveness with which the previous shuttle replacement program was canceled. It seems to me if you don’t know what to do, don’t do anything.

It was with sadness that I watched the closeout crew shuttle the hatch on Atlantis. Tomorrow they and thousands of other shuttle workers will swell the ranks of the unemployed.

“Rubio added later that while commercial crew efforts “is a promising development that we should encourage”, “NASA should lead.” Just not with any more money than it’s currently getting: “It will not be about spending more. It will be about spending wisely.”

The fact that there is no shuttle replacement ready to go by anybody except the Russians is a national embarrassment. NASA has nothing. Space X has nothing ready to go. Real presidential leadership past and present would have not have allowed this to occur. Congress is a joke. A pox on both political parties for this. Who trades in their car and then waits 5 years before having another car ready to go when they trade it in? Now we have to wait…and wait….and wait…. Stupid politicians!

Obviously, any Administration can decide to cancel a program, but that does not mean they are being “vindictive”. It is the job of any administration to decide which programs to run, and not to run.

Please share the “vindictive” part.

Evidence please.

Charlie Bolden does not have a vindictive bone in his body. Charlie has bent over backwards to protect, and acknowledge the capabilities, of the people who ran Constellation program. He is an honorable man.

The irony was not lost on television viewers that as STS-135 was counting down to launch– and the loss of the remaining shuttle-related workforce– President Obama appeared in the Rose Garden attempting to rationalize the dismal creation of just 18,000 jobs last month while reiterating the need to create jobs. No doubt the 6,100 employees at the Kennedy Space Center destined to get pink-slipped and added to the 9.2% unemployment numbers will be amused.

China will do whatever it thinks it needs to do, on its own time and schedule. Nothing will come from them that wasn’t already in the works, no one there was waiting for Shuttle to end, in order to go conqueror the solar system, any more than the Soviets did after Apollo.

Lori Garver appeared on CNN and MSNBC. On CNN, when challenged by a reporter with the contents of the recent op-ed penned by Lovell, Armstrong and Cernan about the lack of direction for HSF, Garver stated that although they were ‘American heroes’ the position they took in their op-ed was “untrue.” Garver all but called them liars. On MSNBC, when pressed by reporters on the lack of any defined destination and new vehicles, Garver stated the President cares deeply about the manned space program because he funded the final two shuttle flights (ignoring the fact his administration cancelled Constellation) blamed Bush for cancelling shuttle and defended the ISS as America’s ‘space program’ for the next 10 years, having saved it from splash in just a few years. (She’s still shilling for the $100 billion boondoggle.) Most disturbing, Garver was promoting the faux concept of ‘American’ spacecraft with ‘USA and flags on them’ taking off soon, misleading viewers by implying they would be NASA space vehicles in the tradition of Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and shuttle.

“And if Wolf doesn’t want to cede the space frontier to China, he should be increasing Commercial Crew, not cutting it.” not only cut it- end it. The place for ‘commerical crew’ to source funding for capital investment is the private sector, not tapping the US Treasury, which currently has to borrow 42 cents of every dollar it spends. Desperate commercial space shills, unable to convince the private sector that the high risk is worth the low ROI in the free market, seek to socialize the risk on the backs of the taxpayers to benefit a few.

“. No doubt the 6,100 employees at the Kennedy Space Center destined to get pink-slipped and added to the 9.2% unemployment numbers will be amused.”

No doubt the number of the unemployed who have run out of unemployment insurance would like to have a portion of the cash that it took to keep the 6100 people at the Cape and other places employeed doing nothing much of relevance to The Republic.

2. Everybody who works pays UI out of their checks- when its exhausted, extentions et al, or you’re a 99-er, tough. But then these are skilled, educated people, arent they. Don’t blame the space program. The fault is supply-side Reaganomics, which has reached its inevitable 30 year run to disaster.

I wouldn’t call Charlie Bolden “vindictive” because he was doing what he was told to do. He comes across as a decent and honorable man, as any Marine should be. Charlie’s main problem is that he’s just not that good a communicator whenever he goes to The Hill.

“Charlie’s main problem is that he’s just not that good a communicator whenever he goes to The Hill.”

It takes two to communicate. Congress doesn’t care what anyone says, they want their jobs-program rocket built, even if there are no payloads for it to launch.

Why would they want to listen to the person who is telling them there is no use for their rocket, and that they haven’t provided enough money or time to build it? Congress doesn’t like to be told that it’s wrong.

Bolden is a good man, but his statement that flying the Shuttle was like playing Russian roulette was both wrong and insulting. After 30 years, the bugs are finally getting worked out. Unfortunately the engineers and techs who actually put their hands on the Shuttle, the people who have person-centuries of experience maintaining reusable spacecraft, will all be fired. The knowledge they worked 30 years to assemble will be lost. while the NASA civil service, many of whom are nice people but can only push around paper and have only a naive and superficial understanding of the engineering realities that really determine cost and reliability, will keep their jobs.

SpaceX is not being given an unfair advantage by Obama. SpaceX, with a very small amount of taxpayer money, is leaving the MCPV/SLS in the dust, revealing it to be slow in development, overweight and overly expensive. However as Musk has said, Human spaceflight with throw-away vehicles and spacecraft is simply not worth the cost, so we will eventually have to rebuild the reusable program and relearn the lessons we learned at such great cost.

“. No doubt the 6,100 employees at the Kennedy Space Center destined to get pink-slipped and added to the 9.2% unemployment numbers will be amused.”

.. and the 2500 days notice they received on their pending unemployment.

Looks like somebody didn’t take advantage of the warning given and line up some new employment. Never mind that the rest of us in private industry are lucky to get 30 day notice on being let go.

Better rid us of this socialist, government make-work program. If space exploration is so important, let the private sector invest private capital. Get the government out of intervention in the marketplace – Like Government Motors! NASA LEO Launch Business is just like its involvement in Government Motors! They can’t seem to build a car/truck that people want, nor can NASA seem to build a rocket that has a defined mission/payload.

I am also forced to say I am astounded by the childish hatred for Obama and SpaceX in Houston. If JSC is looking for fault, they should not look in their stars, but in themselves. They’re in the fix they are in because of Bush’s decision to throw away 30 years of tough progress toward a useful goal, _practical_ human spaceflight. Constellation is a childish fantasy, an attempt by George W. Bush to beat on his chest and proclaim America better than the rest of the world, in an age when we must learn instead to be part of the rest of the world. ISS has valid missions, serving as a terminal for the development of new human launch systems that may finally make spaceflight practical, and as a catalyst for trust and cooperation between nuclear adversaries.

What was most puzzling about the last 2 1/2 years is not only how incompetently NASA has been run, but the vindictiveness with which the previous shuttle replacement program was canceled. It seems to me if you don’t know what to do, don’t do anything.

A little slight rewrite and the truth is exposed:

What was most puzzling about the last 2 1/2 decades is not only how incompetently NASA has been run, but the vindictiveness with which the previous shuttle replacement programs (NLS, HL-20, X-33, NASP, etc.) were canceled. It seems to me if you don’t know what to do, don’t do anything.

” Bolden is a good man, but his statement that flying the Shuttle was like playing Russian roulette was both wrong and insulting. After 30 years, the bugs are finally getting worked out.”

30 years? THIRTY YEARS? After 30 years they are FINALLY getting bugs worked out?

This is absolutely laughable. Name any product that has a 30 year bug line to finally get right and is still around. This is beyond silly. Products are generally in a constant state of innovation and upgrade. The problem was they called an experimental vehicle an operational vehicle. A vehicle that should have been constantly upgraded but it was so freakin’ expensive to operate it ate all the seed corn for 30 years.

You want a blue print on how not to do LEO? Read the shuttle history. It is not a resusable system, it is a servicable vehicle. A huge difference, especially the costs.

If the federal government would have actually honored the space act that gives NASA it’s mandates and allowed competition to the shuttle, it would have been retired 20 years ago. Competition would have given the American taxpayers some actual bang for the buck. But the pork train has been running with the pedal to the metal for decades and certain members of congress have never been about advances in space.

“This is absolutely laughable.- A vehicle that should have been constantly upgraded but it was so freakin’ expensive to operate it ate all the seed corn for 30 years.”

The orbiter was always the evil. The engines, solid rockets, stir welded ET, these have been upgraded as much as possible with the underfunding available.

What is left is the most powerful, evolved, heavy lift hardware on earth, bar none. Nothing else even comes close. And many of the people here would gladly trade it for a hobby rocket. That is what is laughable.

“The problem was they called an experimental vehicle an operational vehicle. A vehicle that should have been constantly upgraded but it was so freakin’ expensive to operate it ate all the seed corn for 30 years.”

Story Musgrave, who is the only astronaut to have flown on all five Shuttle orbiters, said in the latest issue of Time magazine that “The Shuttle has been massively difficult to operate. It’s very unsafe, very fragile. A butterfly bolted onto a bullet, you know.”

Maybe it’s like the situation with military people vs non-military people. Non-military people are usually the first ones in the room to advocate for war, whereas military people are advocating for ways to avoid war.

Bolden and Musgrave know the weaknesses of the Shuttle far better than any of us that have never flown on one, so I tend to believe them.

That the Bolden/Musgrave assessments are a surprise to so many is indicative of one of the worst legacies of the Shuttle program, which is that there was a huge lack of oversight and review of whether the Shuttle was meeting it’s goals and objectives, and if it should have continued to operate for so long.

It tends to confirm my axiom that “a funded program that is operating, even though not successfully so, tends to stay funded.”

Constellation would have followed the same path as Shuttle, and we would have spent over $100B doing hardly anything useful in space. The SLS is on the same path, which is why I expend so many keystrokes to get it killed.

If we don’t start learning from our mistakes, we’ll never make out into the solar system.

“But it doesn’t really matter how powerful or evolved the hardware is if you can’t afford it. Take a lesson from the Soviets.”

No thanks, I don’t take lessons from Russians.

I am tired of fighting about this with private space advocates. They way I talk about the hobby rocket is an attempt to point out the flaws in the new space dogma.

Musk did the best he could- a real smart guy obviously, but the engines are too small. He is trying to do what a 2 million pound F-1A was designed to do with a 150,000 pound engine.

The Merlin is an engine that can probably be used in space but it is not in the class required for 1st stages.

The arguments over hydrogen vs kerosene have been played out a hundred times- but for reaching escape velocity Hydrogen is the winner just as it was when the Saturn V was being designed. Physics do not change. The turbopumps required for a hydrogen engine are far more expensive than those for Kerosene. Which is why SpaceX uses Kerosene.

While SRB’s are roundly cursed they are the best choice for getting off the ground because they do not require an underwater rocket engine graveyard. With present Non-Destructive Inspection technology they are easier to certify for flight than a rocket engine. I have been to the facility that inspects the SRB casings and they go over every inch of the casings. The result has been 260 flawless firings of a rocket 80% more powerful than a Saturn V F-1. And unlike the F-1 the structure is reused. The 50 or so F-1 engines on the floor of the Atlantic multiplied many times is the alternative.

Musk has the Merlin and Dragon and the expertise to fabricate with friction stir welding. Great. An HLV can get those components BEO. But going into deep space without an HLV is not going to work.

The water on the moon changed everything. Someone should have told Obama that. A moon base to launch into deep space from is the next step.

“The Merlin is an engine that can probably be used in space but it is not in the class required for 1st stages.”

If you were a rocket scientist or engineer, then maybe your thoughts on this matter would be informed and worth considering. But you’re not, and real rocket scientists and engineers disagree with you. Actually I’m overstating that last part – they don’t even know that you exist, so they don’t know what babble you’re saying.

But it’s not only the product engineers that would disagree with you, but also the customers that have already signed up for $3B worth of launches with SpaceX. None of them would have purchased if they didn’t think that the Falcon 9 couldn’t do what it was advertised to do, and reliably so. Customers only look at the bottom line, and are generally risk adverse, so SpaceX has already garnered a lot of respect in the launch world with the approach they have taken, as well as their designs.

So go ahead and keeping trying to prove that the bumblebee cannot fly.

“A moon base to launch into deep space from is the next step.”

At this rate with the budget negotiations, we’re not going to the Moon at all if we’re waiting for the government to do it.

Which brings us back to the HLV question – when will it be used? When will Congress add a BEO, Moon, or Mars program to the budget that requires an HLV?

Until you can answer those questions, we don’t need an HLV, regardless the number of engines.

False, and obviously so to anyone with at least a superficial understanding of the issues. You are either ignorant or you are deliberately spreading lies. Perhaps you hope that if you repeat it often enough people will believe it?

Perhaps you hope that if you repeat it often enough people will believe it?

Or he’s a sufficient idiot to actually believe it himself. Granted, that would take a great deal of idiocy, but then, consider all his other posts. Under both names (if not more — he may also be abreakingwind, and DCSCA).

The politics are getting ridiculous. I understand that they disagree about this sometimes but I am tired of all the blanket statements. They need to think not what will be best for government but what will be best for us as citizens and an economy.